JUDGMENT : Kalyan Rai Surana, J. Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned advocate, on instructions by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior advocate, assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.09.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in T.S. No. 98/2015, thereby rejecting petition No. 2721/2016 dated 01.06.2016, seeking leave for filing rejoinder/replication and to allow some time for the same. Also in challenge is the order dated 15.05.2017, passed by the same learned Court in Misc.(J) Case No. 85/2015 in T.S. No. 98/2015, thereby rejecting petition No. 272 dated 01.06.2016, containing similar prayer seeking leave for filing rejoinder/replication and to allow some time for the same. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff in T.S. No. 98/2015, which was filed for declaration and permanent injunction, inter-alia, praying for a declaration that the debit note dated 07.09.2015, issued by the defendant to the plaintiff, relating to payment of Rs. 48,34,733/- is illegal, null and void, not binding on the plaintiff and the same be delivered up and cancelled, for declaration that the letter dated 23.11.2015, issued by the defendant to the plaintiff demanding payment of Rs. 48,34,733/- is illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and the same be delivered and cancelled, for perpetual injunction, temporary injunction, cost of suit etc. 4. In connection with the said suit, the petitioner had filed a separate injunction application which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 85/2015. Both the suit and injunction application was contested by the respondent by filing written statement and written objection. 5. By filing petitions No. 2721/2016 and 272/2016, the petitioner had stated therein that the respondent had averted certain facts which requires to be replied by the petitioner for proper adjudication of the case and, as such, it was stated that the petitioner had intended to file rejoinder/replication in the suit as well as in the injunction application, for which the petitioner sought for time to file the rejoinder/replication. However, by the orders impugned herein, the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh had rejected both the petitions on the ground that the petitioner had not filed any rejoinder/replication nor clarified the points on which they want to file the proposed rejoinder and in the absence of any clarification, it was held that a blanket application cannot be allowed. 6. As two separate orders are under challenge, the challenge ought to have been separately made. Nonetheless, as notice in this case was issued on 23.06.2017, this Court has refrained from returning this application to enable the petitioner from separately challenging the two orders. 7. Assailing both the orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial court has powers under the provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 CPC to allow subsequent pleadings to be brought on record at any time. In this regard it is submitted that in the impugned order, the learned trial court had made an observation that no provisions of law was quoted in petitions No. 2721/2016 and 272/2016. However, non-quoting of the provisions of law in the said petitions could not have been a ground to deny the right of the petitioner to controvert the statements made by the respondent in their written statement and written objection. 8. It is submitted that unless the petitioner is permitted to put their stand on record by filing a replication, they may not be permitted to lead evidence in the absence of pleadings. It is submitted that there was no delay in filing the said application for leave to file rejoinder for the replication because the written statement was filed in the month of March, 2016 and the said two petitions were filed by the petitioner on 01.06.2016. 9. It is submitted that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 CPC is consists of two different parts. The first part relates to the provision of grant of leave to permit subsequent pleading to be brought on record. It is submitted that separated by a semi-colon, the second part related to inherent power of the court to permit subsequent pleading to be brought on record. In support of his submissions and in order to explain the significance of sentences, separated by a semi-colon, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following cases, viz., (i) Prativa Bose Vs. In support of his submissions and in order to explain the significance of sentences, separated by a semi-colon, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following cases, viz., (i) Prativa Bose Vs. Kumar Rupendra Deb Raikat and Others., (1965) AIR SC 540: 3, (ii) Shri Kant Tripathi & Another. Vs. State of U.P., MANU/UP/0574/1987, (iii) Bhartia Allied JV Vs. The Union of India and Others., MANU/GH/0159/2018. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the following cases:- (a). Chandrashekhar Vs. Rahul Shikshan Mandal, Sansar Nagar and Others., MANU/SC/1602/2017; (b). K. Laxman Vs. Tkekkyil Padmini and Others., (2009) 1 SCC 354 ; (c). Rupadhar Pujari Vs. Gangadhar Bhatra, (2004) 7 SCC 654 ; (d). Sushil Kumar Sen Vs. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0028/1975; (e). Rothenberger India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ramsagar Construction and Others., MANU/DE/0707/2016; (f). Shobha and Others. Vs. Namdeo and Others.,2016 SCCOnLine(Bom) 38; (g). Mukut Raj Laxmi and Others. Vs. Jitendra Singh and Others., MANU/RH/1944/2015; (h). Lalzomlien Gangte and Others. Vs. T. Dongzakai Gangte, MANU/MN/0100/2015; (i). Arun Khanna Vs. Vinod Kumar Khanna,2011 SCCOnLine(Del) 1434; (j). Ghanshyam Vs. Vikram and Others., MANU/PH/1151/2006; (k). Anant Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Ram Niwas, MANU/DE/0407/1994; (l). Subramanian & 3 Ors. Vs. Jayaraman, MANU/TN/0183/1999; (m). State of Rajasthan & Another. Vs. Mohammed Ikbal and Others.,1998 SCCOnLine(Raj) 46. (n). Gauri Math Samsthanam Vs. Danda Narayan Swamy and Others., MANU/AP/0699/1991; 11. Opposing this application, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the written statement and written objection, the respondent had not pleaded any new facts, save and except denial of the statements made in the plaint. It is submitted that for routine denial of statements made in the plaint or in the writ petition, the general denial by the plaintiff is presumed and such denial is not required to be reiterated by filing a rejoinder/replication. It is submitted that in this case, a cursory reading of the plaint and the written statement would show that none of the statements made in the written statement is required to be controverted and, as such, the necessity of replication is not there at all. 12. It is submitted that a mere leave petition, not accompanied by a copy of the rejoinder/replication was rightly not entertained by the learned trial Court. 12. It is submitted that a mere leave petition, not accompanied by a copy of the rejoinder/replication was rightly not entertained by the learned trial Court. Drawing a parallel with (i) the Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as (ii) Criminal Leave Petition filed under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is submitted that a stand-alone leave petition by the petitioner was not permissible because the learned trial court, in order to grant leave to file a subsequent pleading, was required to record its satisfaction about the nature and contents of the subsequent pleading which is sought to be brought on record. In this context, the leaned Senior Counsel for the respondent has referred to be provisions of the Order VIII Rule 9 CPC to project that the learned trial court was competent to impose "such terms" as the court may be deem fit for allowing rejoinder/replication to be filed. 13. It is further submitted that when a petition for amendment of the plaint or written statement envisages that the learned trial Court must be satisfied about the nature of the amendment sought to be introduced, there was no error in the order by the learned trial Court not to grant a blanket leave for introduction of a subsequent pleading. 14. Referring to the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is submitted that in none of those cases, it has been held by any of the Hon'ble Courts that no cause was required to be shown before the learned trial court while a rejoinder/replication was required to be brought on record. It is also submitted that in order to enable the learned trial Court to apply its mind, the accompaniment of the rejoinder/replication was sine qua non for considering the petition for leave envisaged under the provisions of Order VII Rule 9 CPC. 15. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has relied on the case of Anant Construction (P) Ltd., cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as on the case of Gurjant Singh Vs. Krishan Chandra and Ors., (2001) AIR Raj. 211. 16. 15. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has relied on the case of Anant Construction (P) Ltd., cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as on the case of Gurjant Singh Vs. Krishan Chandra and Ors., (2001) AIR Raj. 211. 16. As stated above, it is seen that the case of (i) Pratibha Bose, (ii) Sri Kant Tripathi and Anr., and (iii) Bhartia-Allied JV are all cited only to show that the semi-colon in the provision of Order VIII Rule 9 CPC is used to join two separate parts in the same sentence. There is not difficulty in the accepting the said proposition because as per the English Grammar, it is elementary that the semi-colon (;) has just one use - it can unite two separate sentences in to a single sentence, inter-alia, when two separate sentences seem to be too closely to be put in separate sentences. The said authorities lay emphasis on the said point. 17. The case of Chandrashekhar was cited to show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had expressed its disinclination to entertain a contention of the appellant therein on the ground that the written statement was not refuted or disputed by filing any replication or rejoinder. The case of Rothenberger India Pvt. Ltd., the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in paragraph 4 has explained that the origin of tradition for filing of subsequent pleadings and the said case was cited to project that the response to the written statement of defence is known as replication. The other cases are also cited to show that replication, if allowed becomes a part of pleading and to show that replication is an accepted note of denying the averments made in the written statement. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ghanshyam has held that a reading of the provision of Rule 9 of Order VIII makes it clear that if leave is granted by the court to file rejoinder/replication, the plaintiff can be permitted to file the rejoinder/replication and, as such, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was not necessary for a leave petition to be accompanied by a copy of the replication. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Subramanian and Ors. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Subramanian and Ors. has held that the rule relating to subsequent pleadings under Rule 9 of Order VIII CPC has to be liberally construed for granting leave to present additional statement and that the approach of law in permitting the court to grant leave is positive. 18. Having perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it leaves this Court with no doubt that the trial court must record its satisfaction to the nature of subsequent pleading which is sought to be introduced. If the Court is satisfied that the subsequent pleadings are required for the just and fair decision of the case, in such an event, the trial court even has suo motu inherent powers under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC to direct that a rejoinder/replication be filed. However, if the rejoinder/replication is sought to be filed at the instance of the party, in that event the proposed replication is required to accompany the leave petition envisaged under Rule 9 Order VIII CPC. The said requirement can be culled out from the relevant paragraphs of the cases cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner as well as from the cases cited by the learned senior advocate for the respondent. The said cases are discussed as under:- (a). In the case of Anant Construction, the Hon'ble Delhi High court has stated as follows: "26. To sum up: (1) 'replication' and 'rejoinder' have well defined meanings. Replication is a pleading by plaintiff in answer to defendant's plea. 'Rejoinder is a second pleading by defendant in answer to plaintiff's reply i.e. replication. (2) to reach the avowed goal of expeditious disposal, all interlocutory applications are supposed to be disposed of soon on their filing. A delivery of copy or the I.A. to the counsel for opposite party is notice of application. Reply, if any may be filed in between, if the time gap was reasonable enough enabling reply being filed. (3) I.As. which do not involve adjudication of substantive rights of parties and/or which do not require investigation or inquiry into facts are not supposed to be contested by filing written reply and certainly not by filing replication. (4) A replication to written statement is not to be filed nor permitted to be filed ordinarily, much less in routine. A replication is permissible in three situations. (4) A replication to written statement is not to be filed nor permitted to be filed ordinarily, much less in routine. A replication is permissible in three situations. (i) when required by law; (ii) when a counter claim is raised or set off is pleaded by defendant (iii) when the court directs or permits a replication being filed. (5) Court would direct or permit replication being filed when having scrutinized plaint and written statement the need of plaintiff joining specific pleading to a case specifically and newly raised in written statement is felt. Such a need arises for the plaintiff introducing a plea by way of 'confession and avoidance'. (6) A plaintiff seeking leave of the court has to present before it the proposed replication. On applying its mind the court may grant or refuse the leave. (7) A mere denial of defendant's case by plaintiff needs no replication. The plaintiff can rely on rule of implied or assumed traverse and joinder of issue. (8) Subsequent pleadings are not substitute for amendment in original pleadings. (9) A plea inconsistent with the pleas taken in original pleadings cannot be permitted to be taken in subsequent pleadings. (10) A plea which is foundation of plaintiff's case or essentially a part of causes of action of plaintiff, in absence whereof the suit will be liable to be dismissed or the plaint liable to be rejected cannot be introduced for the first time by way of replication. Appreciation is placed on record of useful assistance rend erred by Shri Ishwar Sahai, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Ritu Bhalla, advocate, both from civil side of High Court bar who brought to the notice of the court quite a few aspects relevant to the issues at hand. (b). In the case of Gauri Math Samsthanam, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed as follows: "2. in the proposed rejoinder the plaintiff wanted to explain how the manager is competent to institute to suit on behalf of the mutt and what capacity the suit is filed by him. The plaintiff also wanted to revert some of the allegations made by the defendants in their written statement touching the merits." The said extract goes to show that the nature of plea taken in the rejoinder was very much available before the trial court. The plaintiff also wanted to revert some of the allegations made by the defendants in their written statement touching the merits." The said extract goes to show that the nature of plea taken in the rejoinder was very much available before the trial court. Thus, in light of the said context, the dismissal of the petition for filing a rejoinder was held to be not sustainable. (c). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Laxmanan, in paragraph 29 had held as follows "29. Pleadings as we understand under the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") and as is defined under the provision of Rule 1, Order 6 of the Code consist only of a plaint and a written statement. The respondent-plaintiff could have filed a replication in respect to the plea raised in the written statement, which if allowed by the court would have become the part of the pleadings, but mere non-filing of a replication does not and could not mean that there has been admission of the facts pleaded in the written statement. The specific objection in the form of denial was raised in the affidavits filed in respect of the injunction applications which were accepted on record by the trial court and moreover the acceptance on record of the said affidavit was neither challenged nor questioned by the present appellant." Therefore, it can be seen that the plaintiff was required to file a replication and only if the replication was accepted or allowed by the court would have become a part of the pleadings. Therefore, it is apparent unless a replication is filed, the trial court could not have allowed a replication to be brought on record. (d). The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ghanshyam, has held as follows: "7. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that on leave being granted by the Court to file replication/rejoinder, the plaintiff can be permitted to file the application/rejoinder." (e). The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sobha, had held as follows "9. It can thus be seen that by filing subsequent pleadings under provisions of Order VIII, rule 9 of the Code, a new case cannot be permitted to be introduced by the plaintiff, but he can be permitted to explain additional facts that have been pleaded in the written statement. It can thus be seen that by filing subsequent pleadings under provisions of Order VIII, rule 9 of the Code, a new case cannot be permitted to be introduced by the plaintiff, but he can be permitted to explain additional facts that have been pleaded in the written statement. While the plaintiff cannot be permitted to raise any inconsistent pleas so as to alter his original cause of action, the same would only enable the plaintiff to put forth his positive case in reply to the defendant case as observed in Anant Construction Private Limited. The same is in the nature of "confession and avoidance." "10. The facts of the present case indicate that the suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of his 1/3rd share in the amount of compensation. According to the defendant Nos. 2 to 7, the plaintiff had no right in the amount of compensation on account of deed of partition dated 28.06.1997. By way of subsequent pleadings under provisions of Order VIII, Rule 9 of the Code, the plaintiff intended to deny the legality of aforesaid document on various counts including the fact that their mother Laxmibai was alive when said document was executed. Thus, the pleadings in replication were not inconsistent with the case as set up in the plaint that the plaintiff had 1/3rd share in the amount of compensation. It, therefore, cannot be said that the subsequent pleadings were either inconsistent with the averments in the plaint or that a new case was being sought to be set up. The plaintiff was, therefore, justified in seeking leave to file subsequent pleadings." From the above, it appears that the subsequent pleading was available before the learned trial court, for which upon evaluating its contents, it was held that the plaintiff was justified in seeking leave to file a subsequent pleadings. (f). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Arun Khanna, had evaluated the plea taken in the replication, which shows that the trial court must examine the plea taken in the subsequent pleading for decided whether the filing of replication can be allowed. (g). The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case Mukut Raj Laxmi, had observed as follows "10. (g). The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case Mukut Raj Laxmi, had observed as follows "10. The submission of written statement by the petitioners prompted the respondents-plaintiffs to lay an application under Order VIII Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for craving leave of the Court to file subsequent pleadings. Along with application, the proposed rejoinder is also submitted by the respondents-plaintiffs. In the application, respondents-plaintiffs have highlighted some of the paragraphs of the written statement and the additional pleas and urged that petitioners have pleaded certain new facts which are required to be controverted by subsequent pleadings. In the proposed rejoinder, averments of new facts in written statement are pointed out by the respondents-plaintiffs with clarity and precision. That apart, inconsistencies in the additional pleas of the petitioners-defendants are also mentioned as show necessity of subsequent pleadings for clarifying the position. In totality, the respondents-plaintiffs have made sincere endeavour to make out a case for seeking leave of the court to file subsequent pleadings within four corners of Order VIII Rule 9 CPC." "24. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it amply clear that a very wide discretion is conferred on the court in granting leave to a plaintiff for filing subsequent pleadings. Well it is true that in the guise of subsequent pleadings, a plaintiff cannot be allowed to set up a new case or incorporate certain inconsistent pleadings but then, plaintiff's right to file replication to meet with some of the new facts averred in the written statement is clearly permissible under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC." From the above, it is evident that the proposed rejoinder was submitted along with application to leave under Rule 9 of Order VIII CPC. (h). The Hon'ble Manipur High Court in the case of Lalzomlien Gangte, had evaluated the contents of additional written statement and written statement and held that no new facts have been alleged in the additional written statement and, as such, there was no necessity for filing rejoinder. (i). In the case of Subramanian, it appears from paragraph 2 of the said judgment that leave was prayed for receiving the additional written statement filed along with the leave petition. (j). The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mohammed Ikbal., has held as follows - "9. (i). In the case of Subramanian, it appears from paragraph 2 of the said judgment that leave was prayed for receiving the additional written statement filed along with the leave petition. (j). The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mohammed Ikbal., has held as follows - "9. The principles deducible from the above discussions may be summarized thus- (a) The plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce new pleas by way of filing rejoinder, so as to alter the basis of his plaint. (b) In rejoinder, the plaintiff can be permitted to explain the additional facts which have been incorporated in the written statement. (c) The plaintiff cannot be allowed to come forward with an entirely new case in his rejoinder. (d) The plaintiff cannot be permitted to raise inconsistent pleas so as to alter his original cause of action. (e) Application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC cannot be treated as one under Order 6 rule 17 CPC as both are contextually different. From the above, it is apparent that unless a rejoinder is filed along with the leave petition, the presence or absence of the above principles cannot be decided. (k). From the case of Gurjant Singh, as decided by the Hon'ble Rajasthan high Court, it is apparent that for the purpose of allowing filing of rejoinder/replication, trial court is not only required to appreciate the nature of pleadings made in the written statement and thereafter, the plea sought to be raised in the rejoinder/replication and only upon satisfaction that a particular averment is required to be denied, only then a replication can be allowed to be filed on that particular paragraph. In the said case, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court had permitted a rejoinder to be filed only to the extent of paragraph 18 and 19 and not in respect of any other averments. 19. Thus, from the various cases referred herein before, it is a trite law that the party seeking leave to file subsequent pleadings under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC must satisfy the learned trial Court about the nature of the subsequent pleadings sought to be introduced. However, if the learned trial Court requires any subsequent pleadings, it has powers to issue such direction. However, even such powers are subject to the provisions of Rule 10 of Order VIII CPC. 20. However, if the learned trial Court requires any subsequent pleadings, it has powers to issue such direction. However, even such powers are subject to the provisions of Rule 10 of Order VIII CPC. 20. Thus, the learned trial Court is found to have committed no jurisdictional error in refusing to grant a blanket leave for introduction of a subsequent pleading. It is also seen that when a litigant has to satisfy the Court for amendment of pleadings, why a litigant would be permitted to raise any plea which they want in guise of subsequent pleadings filed under Rule 9 of Order VIII CPC. Therefore, if the rider of satisfying the Court on the nature of plea sought to be introduced by way of subsequent pleadings under Rule 9 of Order VIII CPC was not there, a litigant may start using the provisions of Rule 9 of Order VIII CPC to overcome the challenge they are required to meet for amending of the plaint or the written statement. 21. In the present case in hand, the learned trial court appears to have rightly disallowed the filing of a rejoinder/replication because there was no material before the said learned court that on which particular point the petitioner was seeking to file such subsequent pleading. Thus, in any view of the matter, this Court is unable to hold that the learned trial Court has committed any jurisdictional error in refusing subsequent pleadings to be brought on record under Rule 9 of Order VIII CPC in the absence of such rejoinder/replication accompanying the leave petition. 22. Moreover, even before this Court, there is no material to show that on which particular point the rejoinder/replication is sought to be filed. 23. Before parting with the record, it must be pertinent to mention here that the learned advocate for the petitioner had relied on the provisions of Rule III, 4(b) of the "Trial Courts and First Appellate Subordinate Courts (under the Gauhati High Court) Case Management Rules, 2007." The relevant paragraph 4(b) thereof is quoted below: "4(b). 23. Before parting with the record, it must be pertinent to mention here that the learned advocate for the petitioner had relied on the provisions of Rule III, 4(b) of the "Trial Courts and First Appellate Subordinate Courts (under the Gauhati High Court) Case Management Rules, 2007." The relevant paragraph 4(b) thereof is quoted below: "4(b). If the court passes an ad-interim ex-parte order in an interlocutory application, and the reply by the defendants is filed, and if, thereafter, the plaintiff fails to file the rejoinder (if any) without good reason for the delay, the court has to consider whether the stay or interim order passed by the Court should be vacated and shall list the case with that purpose. This is meant to prevent parties taking adjournment with a view to having undue benefit of the ad-interim orders. The plaintiff may, if he so chooses also waive his right to file a rejoinder. A communication of option by the plaintiff not to file a rejoinder, made to the registry will be deemed to be the completion of pleadings in the interlocutory application." 24. The purpose of the rule is to ensure timely disposal of the miscellaneous matters concerning prayers for an ad-interim injunction. Rule 3A of Order XXXIX envisages disposal of the application within 30 (thirty) days in a time bound manner. Moreover, an application for injunction is decided summarily on the basis of petition and the objection, as such, opportunity for rejoinder/replication is envisaged for with said object. However, the said Rule 4(b) of Trial Courts and First Appellate Subordinate Courts (under the Gauhati High Court) Case Management Rules, 2007 cannot override and/or dilute and/or waive the requirement of the mandate of Rule 9 of Order VIII CPC, requiring satisfaction of the Court before allowing subsequent pleadings to be brought on record. 25. Therefore, the present challenge fails in respect of order dated 14.09.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in T.S. No. 98/2015, thereby rejecting petition No. 2721/2016 dated 01.06.2016, seeking leave for filing rejoinder/replication and to allow some time for the same. Moreover, having not found any jurisdictional error to have been committed by the learned trial Court, this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 Constitution of India does not have a unfettered discretion to substitute its own wisdom over the sound judicial discretion exercised by the learned trial court. Moreover, having not found any jurisdictional error to have been committed by the learned trial Court, this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 Constitution of India does not have a unfettered discretion to substitute its own wisdom over the sound judicial discretion exercised by the learned trial court. In the present case, rejection of the prayer for leave under Rule 9 of Order VIII CPC, having been not accompanied by the proposed rejoinder/replication, was not vitiated by any jurisdictional error, as such, this application stands dismissed. 26. Under the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own cost. 27. The parties, who are duly represented by their respective learned advocates herein, are directed to appear before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh on 10.10.2018 without any further notice of appearance and by producing the certified copy of this order, the parties shall seek further instructions from the said learned court.